English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We investigate the observational constraints on the interacting holographicdark energy model. We consider five typical interacting models with theinteraction terms $Q=3\beta H\rho_{\rm{de}}$, $Q=3\beta H\rho_{\rm{c}}$,$Q=3\beta H(\rho_{\rm{de}}+\rho_{\rm c})$, $Q=3\betaH\sqrt{\rho_{\rm{de}}\rho_{\rm c}}$, and $Q=3\betaH\frac{\rho_{\rm{de}}\rho_{c}}{\rho_{\rm{de}}+\rho_{\rm c}}$, respectively,where $\beta$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. The observational data weuse in this paper include the JLA compilation of type Ia supernovae data, thePlanck 2015 distance priors data of cosmic microwave background observation,the baryon acoustic oscillations measurements, and the Hubble constant directmeasurement. We make a comparison for these five interacting holographic darkenergy models by employing the information criteria, and we find that, withinthe framework of holographic dark energy, the $Q=3\betaH\frac{\rho_{\rm{de}}\rho_{\rm c}}{\rho_{\rm{ de}}+\rho_{\rm c}}$ model is mostfavored by current data, and the $Q=3\beta H\rho_{\rm c}$ model is relativelynot favored by current data. For the $Q=3\beta H\rho_{\rm{de}}$ and $Q=3\betaH\frac{\rho_{\rm{de}}\rho_{\rm c}}{\rho_{\rm{ de}}+\rho_{\rm c}}$ models, apositive coupling $\beta$ can be detected at more than 2$\sigma$ significance.

Revisit of the interacting holographic dark energy model after Planck 2015